The Sociology of the Self
Author(s): Peter L. Callero
Source: Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 29 (2003), pp. 115-133
Published by: Annual Reviews
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/30036963
Accessed: 07/06/2009 01:58
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=annrevs.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the
scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that
promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Annual Reviews is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Annual Review of
Sociology.
http://www.jstor.org
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2003. 29:115-33
doi: 10.1146/annurev.soc.29.010202.100057
Copyright© 2003 by AnnualReviews. All rightsreserved
Firstpublishedonline as a Review in Advance on June4, 2003
THE SOCIOLOGY
OFTHESELF
PeterL.Callero
Departmentof Sociology, WesternOregonUniversity,Monmouth,Oregon97361;
email: Callerp@wou.edu
Key Words identity,socialconstruction,power,reflexivity
* Abstract An emergingsociologicalapproachto the self reflectsnew emphases
Thesignificanceof powerin shaping
on power,reflexivity,andsocialconstructionism.
the self is centralto a new scholarshipassociatedwith Foucault.This body of work
offersan importantcorrectiveto traditionalsociologicalorientationsassociatedwith
Mead and symbolicinteractionism.The principleof reflexivityis at the core of the
Meadiantraditionandprovidesa pragmaticfoundationfor understanding
agencyand
politicalactionmissing from much of the new scholarship.The principleof social
constructionis commonto both new and traditionalsociologicalapproachesto the
self and guides most recentempiricalanalyses.Promisingavenuesof researchare
evidentin workthatexploresthe sociologicalcontextof self-construction,
the social
resourcesemployedin the constructionprocess,andthe growingimportanceof nonhumanobjectsin self-construction.
Thelimitationof scholarshipthatoveremphasizes
is also examined.
the psychologicalproductsof self-construction
INTRODUCTION
The emerging direction of contemporarysocial theory is perhapsnowhere
more evident than in the attentionit lavishes upon the nature of the self,
self-identity,and individualsubjectivity.
AnthonyElliot (2001, p. 8)
The pasttwo decadesof the twentiethcenturysaw the conceptsof self andidentity
move to the centerof intellectualdebatein the social sciences andthe humanities.
This eruptionof attentionwas spurredby burgeoningdevelopmentsin poststructuralism,culturalstudies, feminism, and queer theory.Yet it is also the case that
sociological forces outside of the academyhave contributedto a growingconcern
with selfhood.As the globalizationprocesses of late capitalismcontinueto destabilize traditionalpracticesand culturalassumptions,the self is exposed in various
ways. We see, for example, an increasingindividualizationof social life (Beck &
Beck-Gernsheim2002), a proliferationof roles (Frank& Meyer 2002), and the
emergence of "identityprojects"(Giddens 1991), where personal meaning and
social location become a matterof effort and conscious "choice."
0360-0572/03/0811-0115$14.00
115
116
CALLERO
This widespreadconcernwith the self has lead to a new scholarshipthatis multidisciplinary,methodologicallyeclectic, andgenerallypostmodernin orientation.
Thereare, for example, significantnew developmentsin both theoryand research
on the self occurringin anthropology,history,political science, communications,
and literarystudies. It is notable, however,that most of the new scholarshiphas
not been influencedby symbolic interactionism,sociology's dominanttheoretical
approachto the self. Lemert made this point more generally in 1992 when he
observedthe following:
Symbolic Interactionism,like pragmatismmore generally,finds itself limited
todayby its weirdirrelevanceto the debateover the postmoderncondition.SI
with its decidedinterestin languageand pragmatism,with its deep structural
commitmentsto view knowledge as always close to workings of the world,
would seem to be the naturalkin to any postmoderntheory. This has not
howeverbeen the case.
CharlesLemert(1992, p. ix)
Lemertis correctin noticinga surfacesimilaritybetweenpragmatismandpostmoderntheory.Thereis indeed a sharedappreciationof the centralityof language
and communication,a common problematizingof symbols and objectivity, and
recognitionof the socially contingentnatureof identity.In the time since Lemert's
assessment,some intellectualcross-fertilizationhas occurred(Denzin 1992), particularlyaroundthe conceptof identity(Howard2000, Cerulo1997). Nevertheless,
it is still generallytruethatwithinU.S. sociology, mostresearchon the self remains
the relatively localized disciplinaryconcern of those working in the traditionof
symbolic interactionism(e.g, Gecas & Burke 1995, Gubrium& Holstein 2000,
Burkeet al. 2003).
There are certainlyinstitutionaland disciplinaryreasons for this divide. Postmodernism,after all, has its origins outside of sociology in the fields of art,philosophy, and literarycriticism.Yet the gulf between symbolic interactionismand
postmodernismreflectsmorethanintransigentacademicboundaries.Epistemological differencesand independentconceptualsystems have also been fundamental
barriersto mutualelaboration.
Froma postmoderniststance,symbolicinteractionismandthe pragmatisttraditioncanbe dismissedas merevestiges of modernistthinking.Symbolicinteractionism's commitmentto Enlightenmentvalues that privilege reason and rationality
are in stark contrastto the postmodernbreak with the discourse of science. In
fact, much of the postmodernscholarshipassumes a radicalanti-essentialismthat
rejects on philosophicalgroundsthe very concept of self.
On the otherhand,fromthe perspectiveof many symbolicinteractionists,postmodernism offers little that is new or that has not already been said using an
interactionistconceptual vocabulary.This is the position staked out by Maines
(1996), who arguesthatpostmodernismis simply a weak approximationof pragmatistthoughtandis thereforelargelyirrelevantto interactionistwork.Moreover,
SOCIOLOGY
OFSELF
117
Maines (1996, p. 335) believes that any theoreticalconvergenceis unlikely because a postmodernistinteractionismcould never be sustainedbecause it would
"deconstructitself in termsof its own epistemologicalarguments."
Even thougha strictconvergenceof postmodernismand symbolic interactionism is unlikely, there are nevertheless elements of the new literaturethat can
enhancethe traditionalinteractionistunderstandingof the self. Similarly,a serious
engagementof pragmatismcan help clear the muddiedconceptualpool surrounding the new scholarship.In this review,I discuss an emergingsociological understandingof the self that draws from both interactionistand postmodernthemes.
This developingperspectivecenterson three organizingconcepts: (a) power, (b)
reflexivity,and (c) social constructionism.
The significance of power in shaping the self is central to much of the new
scholarshipand offers an importantcorrectiveto traditionalsociological orientations associatedwith Mead, Goffman,and symbolic interactionism.The principle
of reflexivityis at the core of the Meadiantraditionandprovidesa pragmaticfoundation for understandingagency and political action missing from much of the
new scholarship.Finally the principle of social constructionis common to both
new and traditionalsociological approachesto the self and guides most recent
empiricalanalyses.
POWERAND THE SELF
The individualis not the vis-a-vis of power;it is, I believe, one of its prime
effects.
MichaelFoucault(1994, p. 214)
For well over two decades, an expandingchorusof postmodernandpoststructuralcriticshas proclaimedthe deathof self. Fortheoristssuch as Derrida,Laclau,
and Baudrillard,the idea thatindividualsarein possession of a core, rational,unitary self, endowed with an essential natureand an independentconsciousness, is
simply a political artifactof the EuropeanEnlightenment.No single theoristhas
had a widerinfluenceon this understandingof the self thanFoucault(1979, 1980,
1988, 1994).
ForFoucault,the self is the directconsequenceof powerandcan only be apprehended in terms of historically specific systems of discourse. So-called regimes
of power do not simply control a bounded,rationalsubject,but ratherthey bring
the self into existence by imposingdisciplinarypracticeson the body.Throughthe
"technologies"of surveillance,measurement,assessment,andclassificationof the
body, technocrats,specialists, therapists,physicians, teachers,and officers serve
as vehicles of power in diverse institutionalsettings (prisons, schools, hospitals,
social service agencies). In this way, practicesthatarenormativelyrepresentedas
humaneinterventionsin supportof communityhealth, safety,and educationactually serve as mechanismsof domination.Thus, rationality,reason, and scientific
118
CALLERO
knowledgearerejectedas progressivesourcesof emancipation.Instead,these values of the Enlightenmentprojectareunderstoodto be the discursivefoundationof
control and dominationin modem society. From Foucault'sperspective,the self
is coerced into existence, not to become an agent but as a mechanismof control
where systems of discoursework from the inside out by creatinga self-regulating
subject.
Following Foucault,StuartHall (1996) stresses that there can be no true self
hiding "inside"or behind the artificialor superficialbecause self and identity are
constructed"within,not outside discourse."The analyticalproject, therefore,is
not one of discovery but deconstruction.To deconstructthe self is to challenge
essentialist assumptionsand lay bare the mannerin which the self is wholly dependentupon discourse.ForHall, this means analysis shouldfocus on the specific
historicaland institutionalsites of "discourseformation."
Rose (1996) also addresses the alternativemethodological strategies of the
Foucauldiantradition.He notes thatthe deconstructionof the self does not lead to
a social structureand personalityapproachthat investigateshow "differentages
producehumanswith differentpsychological characteristics,differentemotions,
beliefs, pathologies."This is because "suchanalysespresupposea way of thinking
thatis itself an outcomeof history,one thatemergesonly in the nineteenthcentury"
(p. 129). As an alternative,Rose advocatesa "genealogyof subjectification"that
would be concerned with localized attemptsto produce meaning, especially as
this occursthroughprofessionalvocabulariesandthe technologiesandpracticesof
science, medicine,government,andtheworkplace.A relatedstrategyis evident,for
example, in Cushman's(1995) historicalanalysis of psychotherapyin the United
States. Althoughprovidinga fascinatingdescriptionof the institutional,political,
and economic forces shaping our culturalunderstandingof the self, his work is
premisedon the assumptionthat "Thereis no universal,transhistoricalself, only
local selves; thereis no universaltheoryaboutthe self, only local theories"(p. 23).
The primarycontributionof the new scholarshipis that it has connected the
study of the self to the historicaldeploymentof power. It has demonstratedthat
the self is constitutedwithin relationsof control and is deeply embeddedwithin
systems of knowledge and discourse.This is an importantdevelopment,one that
has contributedto new directionsin the studyof identitiesassociatedwith gender
and sexuality.
There is, however,a critical limitationof the Foucauldiantradition.The radical break with Enlightenmentideals has dissolved the foundationof a universal
self and eliminatedthe assumptionof an agentic and knowledgeableactor(Elliot
2001). This is problematicin that it becomes difficult, if not impossible, to theorize the possibility of emancipationthroughorganizedresistance and political
interventionif actors are conceived to be mere subjectsof discourse.In the view
of Best (1994, p. 46), "Foucaultreducedconsciousness and identity formationto
coercive socializationand failed to grasp the individualizingpossibilities created
by modernity.. .this radicalantihumanismposed the obvious problemof seeking
social changewithoutfree and active agents."AlthoughFoucaultdid not rejectall
SOCIOLOGY
OFSELF
119
claims to truthor the possibility of resistance,his workteeterson a slipperyphilosophicalslope, andcriticshaveforcedFoucaultandotherpostmoderniststo defend
the subject against charges of moral relativism (Levine 1992), neoconservatism
(Habermas1983), and political inaction(Gitlin 1995).
ForNicholson & Seidman(1995, p. 35), a solutionto this politicaldilemmacan
be found in a social postmodernism,where critiqueis supplementedwith positive
possibilities of action and where "the problematizingof essentialized identities,
the de-centeringof the subject and society, the re-centeringof the social around
analyzingpower/knowledgeregimes, aremajorresourcesfor criticalanalysis and
a democraticpolitics." Consistentwith this strategy,Mouffe (1995) does not believe, for example, that the deconstructionof gender as a featureof the self must
necessarilyrob feminism of a coherentidentity.On the contrary,she proposes a
politics where the aim is to "constructa 'we' as radicaldemocraticcitizens" and
where politicalmovementsassociatedwith identitycategoriesareenableddespite
their tentative,discourse-dependentnature.Yet to accomplishthis importantand
necessary reformulationrequiresa conceptualizationof the self as an embodied
agent, a knowledgeable,problemsolving actorratherthanan amorphous"subject
position."In otherwords, it requiresan appreciationof the reflexiveprocess of a
social self, a foundationmissing from the new scholarshipbut well establishedin
the philosophicaltraditionof Americanpragmatism.
PROCESS
THE SELFAS REFLEXIVE
It is a mistaketo say thatidentitiesare trans-historicaland universal,but it is
also a mistaketo say thatpersonhoodand selves are not.
NorbertWiley (1994, p. 2)
Most theoristswho have criticizedthe essentialist assumptionsof the modem
self havedone so withoutreferenceto Mead'ssocial psychology.As a consequence,
the new scholarshipon the self is trappedby a "categoryerror,"or the failureto distinguisha generic self from particularidentities(Wiley 1994). For symbolic interactionists,the self is firstandforemosta reflexiveprocessof social interaction.The
reflexiveprocessrefersto theuniquelyhumancapacityto become anobjectto one's
self, to be both subjectand object. Reflexivity is not a biological given but rather
emerges from the social experience.Accordingto Mead (1934, p. 134), "It is by
means of reflexiveness--the turning-backof the experienceof the individualupon
himself-that the whole social process is thus broughtinto the experienceof the
individualsinvolvedin it."Wiley's neopragmatismextendsthis basic principleand
mergesthepragmatismof MeadandPiercein arguingthatthe self, definedin terms
of a basic semiotic process of interpretation,is a definingfeatureof humannature
andis thusbothtranshistoricalanduniversal,a qualitythatdoes not extendto identities, which aretakento be the social productsof the self process.This is a key distinctionandone thatis surprisinglyabsentin argumentsthatproblematizethe self.
120
CALLERO
Just as the acceptanceof language as a culturaland historicaluniversaldoes
not mandatethe emergenceof a common humanlanguage,the contingentnature
of identity does not rest on the universalityof the reflexiveprocess. It should also
be noted thatan acceptanceof the self process as universaldoes not mean thatthe
self can simply be reducedto language. This is because interactionistsstress the
primacyof social action.
Dunn (1997, pp. 695-96) builds on Wiley's neopragmatism,arguingthatpoststructuralistssuchas Butler(e.g., 1990) offer a limitedconceptualizationof agency
because they fail to appreciatethe prediscursivecapacityto act that is so central
to Mead's theoryof the self. "Farfrom being merely a word,in the Meadianview
the 'I' is an internalexperienceof reflexivitythatprecedesthe sense of linguistic
reflexivity impartedby signification."Dunn shows how the pragmatistposition
allows for an understandingof the self "as structuredin and throughdiscourse
withoutbeing reducedto it."
Using a somewhatsimilardistinction,Schwalbe(1993, p. 334) defends the self
"againstpostmodernism,"asserting that the self emerges and takes form in the
corporalbody of individualsand is a "psychic process wherein signs and other
formsof imageryanswerto biologicallyrootedimpulses,"a pointthathas also been
well developedby Joas (1983, 1996). In otherwords,the self at its most basic level
is a reflexiveprocessthatregulatesthe acting,agenticorganism.Unlike most other
acting organisms,humanshave a sophisticatedsystem of signs and gestures that
enable and constrainperception,reflection,and action (Perinbanayagam1991).
For Schwalbe, Dunn, Wiley, Joas, Perinbanayagam,and most other symbolic
interactionists,a full understandingof the self begins with the Meadian notion
of reflexivity.The self conceived in this way allows for agency, creative action,
and the possibility of emancipatorypolitical movements.It does not precludethe
very real possibility that the self-regulatingprocesses of reflexivitywill come to
be colonized by forces of dominationandcontrol,butit does show how resistance
is always on the horizonof the possible. Justas important,this configurationis not
inconsistentwith new, postmodernapproachesto self andpower.In fact, Antonio
& Kellner(1994, p. 136) show thatMead and otherpragmatistsprefiguremuch of
the postmoderncritiqueof the Enlightenmentself in that
they attackedthe tendency to treat the rational capacities of the self as an
imperviousruler over human activities and experiences. For example, they
held thatthoughtfollows as well as leads practices.And they did not privilege
cognitive capacities at the expense of sensuousness, emotion, sympathetic
identification,and otherfeelings.
Yet,despitethe earlypoliticalconcernsthatmotivatedMeadandotherProgressive erapragmatists(Shalin 1988), the symbolicinteractionisttraditionhas, for the
most part,failed to develop a sophisticatedconceptualunderstandingof the self in
which relationsof power arepresumedto be constitutive.A recentadvancein this
directioncan be foundin the workof Callero(2003), who mergeselementsof critical theoryand symbolic interactionismin the conceptualizationof a political self.
SOCIOLOGY
OFSELF
121
Although sharp differences between pragmatistsand postmodernistswill no
doubt remain, and the ontological status and essential origins of self-meanings
will continueto be debated,there is today a consensus within the discipline that
the self is at some level a social construction.Whetherphenomenalor discursive,
fragmentaryor unitary,stable or transitory,emotional or rational, linguistic or
embodied,the self is assumedto be a productof social interaction.It is this fundamentalprinciplethatframesmost contemporaryresearchon the sociological self.
THE SELFAS SOCIALCONSTRUCTION
For manyconstructioniststhe hope has been to build from the existing rubble
in new andmore promisingdirections.The postmodernargumentsareindeed
significant,but serve not as an end but a beginning.
KennethJ. Gergen(1999, p. 30)
It has become common in reviews of the sociological self to arguethatthe self is
both a social productand a social force (Rosenberg1981). In the firstinstance,the
self is examinedas a bounded,structuredobject-Mead's "me"-whereas in the
second instance,the self is examinedas a fluid, agentic, and creativeresponseMead's "I."The distinctioncapturesthe core principleof a socially constructed
self, namelythatthe self is ajoint accomplishment,neithercompletelydetermined
by the social world nor pregivenat birth.
Following Cooley and Mead, most researchin the symbolic interactionisttradition has focused on self-understandings,self-meanings,and self-conceptsas the
social productsof interest. The emphasis has in other words been on the social
productionof the personal self. Yet the social constructionof selfhood is also
about the meanings and understandingsassociated with the public self, the self
that is visible and known to othersand encompassedby what we come to accept
within the culturalcategory of personhood.Cahill (1998) recognizes this bias in
the literatureand makes a compellingcase for a "sociology of the person."(Cahill
offers a conceptualdistinctionbetween person, self, and individualthatis helpful
but unlikely to overcome the momentumof currentusage. I use the term public
self in place of Cahill'sperson.)Drawingon the work of Durkheim,Goffman,and
Foucaulthe proposes a frameworkfor understandingthe collectively instituted
conceptionsof the public self, the meansby which these conceptionsareproduced
and the disciplinarytechniquesof powerthataredeployed in the process.Cahill's
work offers an importantcorrectiveto approachesto social constructionismthat
tend to psychologize the subject.As he notes, "the public person is not made in
the image of a unique self; rather,an interpretivepictureof a unique self is made
in the image of the public person"(Cahill 1998, p. 131).
This suggests thata full understandingof self-meanings,self-images, and selfconceptsrequiresa broadconceptualizationof context,one thatextendsbeyondthe
immediatedefinitionof the situationto include the historicaland culturalsettings
where unarticulatedassumptionsaboutthe natureof the personhave their origin.
122
CALLERO
The SociologicalContext of Self-Construction
In anambitiousandimportantpiece of scholarship,Taylor(1989) offersno less than
a history of the modem self. Althoughhis primaryconcernis with demonstrating
therelationshipbetweenchangingsenses of the self andchangingmoralvisions, his
workalso examinesthe sociological contextwithinwhichthe modem assumptions
regardingself andidentityemerged.For Taylor(1989, p. 111), the partitioningof
the world into the innersphereof privateexperienceandthe outerworld of public
experience is not a culturaluniversalbut "ratherit is a function of a historically
one which has become dominantin the modem
limitedmode of self-interpretation,
West.... but which has a beginning in time and space and may have an end."
Taylor(p. 206) is clearthatthe modem approachto identityarosebecause a "wide
rangeof practices-religious, political, economic, familial,intellectual,artisticconvergedand reinforcedeach otherto produceit."
In contrast,sociologistshavegenerallytakena morelimitedapproachto context
whenpursingthe social constructionof self. The dominanttendencyhas been either
to focus on the immediatesituation,as evident in Goffman'swork, or to examine
contemporaryshifts in cultureor social structure.The latterperspectiveis often
categorizedas the social structureandpersonalityapproachandis associatedwith a
long list of monographsaddressingchangesin a generalizedcommunalself orcharacter.Notable sociological statementsinclude TheLonelyCrowd(Riesman 1950),
TheOrganizationMan (Whyte 1956), OneDimensionalMan (Marcuse1964), The
Pursuit of Loneliness (Slater 1970), The Fall of Public Man (Sennet 1977), The
Cultureof Narcissism(Lasch 1979), Habits of the Heart (Bellah et al. 1985), and
The SaturatedSelf (Gergen 1991). Taviss Thomson (2000) and McClay (1994)
have both producedexcellent criticalassessmentsof this literature.
The value of these efforts is that they provide a perspectiveof distance that
directsour attentionto common sociological forces thatcontrol,limit, and define
the constructionprocess in common ways. At their best they can offer insight
into the changing definitionsand meaning of the public person. Yet there is also
a danger in that the wide generalizationsof these analyses can sweep over the
multidimensional,overlapping,and shifting culturalmeanings of self. We know
that critical featuresof self-constructionvary over the life course (Demo 1992)
and across racial, ethnic, class, and gender categories (e.g., Owens 2000, Frable
1997). For this reason,the most enduringandinformativeanalyses are often those
that link togetherhistoricalshifts in the political economy, changes in particular
social settings,and criticalalterationsin self-experience.The work of Hochschild
(1983, 1989, 1997) is particularlystrong in this regard.Drawing from macroeconomic indicators,structuredquestionnaires,and in-depthinterviews, she has
producedinsightfuldescriptionsof workerswho strugglewith new andambiguous
self-understandingsand self-meanings that are being constructedin response to
powerful changes in the capitalistlabor process. A similar positive contribution
can be found in the recentwork of Sennett(1998).
A relatedavenueof researchdeals with globalizationand the self. The process
of globalizationis a highly contestedtopicwithinsociology andthereareimportant
SOCIOLOGY
OFSELF
123
debates aboutits origin, scale, and trajectory(Guillen 2001). In general,it refers
to the increasing dispersion of capital, people, information,and culture across
internationalborders,a process that has been acceleratedby advances in travel
and communicationtechnologies (Held & McGrew2000).
The effectsof globalizationon the self areseen primarilythroughthe disruption,
elaboration,and colonization of local cultures.According to Arnett (2002), the
most prominentself changes areevidentin adolescentsandyoung adultswhere an
increasein identityconfusion has been recorded.Identityconfusion occurs when
the disruptionof traditionalpracticesandperspectivesresultsin a loss of meaning
(Tomlinson 1999) and the erosion of tradition.Stevenson & Zusho (2002), for
example,reportedthatcollectivist values andpracticesareon the decline in Japan
and Chinaas a consequenceof Westerninfluences.
Global media culture and increasingrates of migrationalso expose actors to
a wider set of meanings for the constructionof identity.This has resultedin the
formationof biculturalidentities, where the self defined by local meanings and
more traditionalpracticesis maintainedalongside a self definedby global culture
(Arnett 2002). Others see the process as more complex and have advancedthe
notion of a hybrididentity,where local and global meanings are not segregated
but exist in a multiple,dynamic,and conflictedrelationship(Hermens& Kempen
1998). Importantresearchin this areais beginningto explorethe mannerin which
global culturalmeanings and new ways of living are negotiatedat the local level
(e.g., Derne 2002).
Still, not all culturaldisruptionsare integratedinto an adaptive self-system.
Resistanceto the forces of globalizationhas been manifestedin the construction
of a wide range of oppositionalidentities. This can be seen, for example, in the
growth of religious fundamentalisms(Marty & Appleby 1993, Swatos 2001),
a resurgenceof nationalistidentityprojects(Barber1996), and the emergenceof
globalprotestmovementswherethe exploitativeeffects of capitalismarecontested
by diversepolitical groups (Elkins 1992, Russell 2003).
Resources for Self-Construction
A considerablebody of researchis concernedwith the symbols and communication strategiesemployed in the constructionof individual self-meanings. These
resourcesfor self-constructionare conceptuallydiverse and include storytelling,
culturalnarratives,political ideologies, roles, identities,and featuresof the corporalbody.Althoughresourcesareoften invokedin the questfor personaldistinction
and individuality,they should not be thoughtof as a privatesymbolic cache, nor
should they be considereduniversalqualitiesof the self. Rather,they exist as part
of a cultural"toolkit"(Swidler 1986), areinterpersonallymaintainedwithin various culturalspheresof meaning,and are deployedin social settingsto accomplish
social objectives.This is particularlyevidentin the case of storytellingandcultural
narratives.
Maines (2001, p. 177), who has been instrumentalin developing a "narrative
sociology,"offersa useful distinctionbetweenstorytellingandnarratives.Whereas
124
CALLERO
storytelling
activitythatcanvaryaccording
is "anovert,conversational
toanumber
narrative
of factors,includingsituation,audienceandcompetence,"
structures
are
"cultural
framesandideologiesthatprefiguresomestories."Consistentwiththis
storiesthatdraw
distinction,we can thinkof self-narratives
as autobiographical
on culturalframes.
Althoughevidencesuggeststhatthe use of narratives
in the processof selfoccursearlyon in life (Bruner& Lucariello1989),the narrative
construction
is
nota naturalformof cognition.Researchby Nelson(1997)supportstheideathat
is a culturallystructured
productof languageuse learnedrelatively
the narrative
earlyon in thesocialization
process.
Brunner(1997)pursuesthelargerquestionof whywe arecompelledto develop
self-narratives
in the firstplace.His answeris found
extendedautobiographical
in the observation
self-narratives
that
functionto sustaina senseof stabilityand
in the world.Whendisruption
predictable
understanding
is perceivedit mustbe
providea framework.
explained,andnarratives
Narratives
arethuselaborateaccountingsdesignedtodealwiththetroublescreatedbydepartures
fromlegitimacy,
duringtimesof dynamicsocialchange
whichsuggestsa greateruse of narratives
orin settingsof socialdiversity(Hart& Fegley1997).
Snow& Anderson's
(1993)classicstudyof thehomelessalsoprovidessupport
as resourcesin defenseof an unstablesocial environfor the use of narratives
ment.As conventional
identitiesarechallengedby economicand social exclusion, Snow & Andersonfoundthatthe subjectsof theirstudywouldresortto
"fictivestorytelling"in aneffortto sustaina positiveself-understanding.
Thedifferencebetweenfictivestorytellingandculturalnarratives
is key.Becausefictive
storytellingis not sustainedwithina largercommunity,
othersarenot likelyto
acceptthe explanationas legitimate.As a consequence,the actorusing fictive
storytellingmaybe privatelybolsteredbutpubliclyexcludedor ridiculed.In this
a princicollectiveactionis essentialto thepowerof narratives,
way,coordinated
ple thathasbeenempiricallydemonstrated
(1996)in a study
by Mason-Schrock
the subof transsexuals.
Despitethe absenceof anestablishedculturalnarrative,
jects of his studyavoidedthe isolationof fictivestorytellingby cooperatingto
producesharedstories.Onceestablished,it was groupaffirmation
of storiesthat
of gendernonconformity"
"cementedthe interpretation
(p. 186). Relatedsupportcan also be foundin Loseke& Cavendish(2001)andHolstein& Gubrium
(2000).
Thecorporalbodycanalso serveas a resourcefor self-construction.
Through
on
2001),
cosmetic
(Davis
art
genitalia
(Preves
surgery
surgery
1995),body (Phelan
& Hunt 1998), and fashion(Crane2000, Guy & Banim2000), the body can
be shapedin an attemptto constructparticularmeaningsof self. Onceagain,
however,thesecreationsarenotsimplyindividualproducts.Gagne& Tewksbury
thatthemeaningsthatareeithersoughtor
(1999)showforthecaseof transsexuals
of thebodyarethemselvesinfluencedby dominant
contestedthroughalterations
social discoursesandpoliticalideologies,a themewell developedin Denzin's
to symbolicinteractionism
as culturalstudies.
(1992)approach
SOCIOLOGY
OFSELF
125
Denzin emphasizesthe political natureof stories and texts as culturalproducts
and shows how the production,distribution,consumption,and exchange of signs
within systemsof discourseare a key to understandinghow we become the self of
the stories we tell. In his researchon the alcoholic self, he illustratesthis process
by showing how the stories that are told in groups like Alcoholics Anonymous
are based on culturalunderstandingsthat often drawon media representationsof
alcoholics thatmay or may not reflectactualexperiences.Denzin's contributionis
importantin thatit moves us closer to linking self resourcesto largerinstitutional
forces, political ideologies, economic interests,and the so-called going concerns
of social life (Gubrium& Holstein 2000). It is here thatpower is often hiddenin
the taken-for-grantedmomentumof tradition,popularculture, and interpersonal
relations.
The relatively stable set of social meanings and social relations is the focus
those
within the so-called structuraltraditionof symbolic interactionism.Reof
searchersin this traditionhave producedan impressivebody of empiricalwork in
supportof a bounded set of hypotheses and relationshipscenteringon the use of
social roles (Callero 1995, Collier 2001) and identities (Stets & Burke 2003) as
fundamentalresourcesfor self-construction.Stryker's(1980) identity theory has
been most influentialin establishingthe frameworkfor this project.For Stryker,
identities are distinct parts of the self defined by the meanings and expectations
associated with network positions and role expectations. Positions are defined
as elements of a social structureand have associated with them behavioralexpectations that emerge from patternsof interactionand remain relatively stable
over time. When the meanings of social roles are internalized,they are said to
have become a partof the self. Social interactionthus producesthe resourcesfor
constructingthe self (role identities),which, in turnguides and patternsbehavior
definingsocial structure.
Although the structuralapproachto symbolic interactionrecognizes the dynamic and open-endednatureof self-meanings,little attentionis devoted to the
culturalconstructionof identity categories or the historical context of the constructionprocess. Instead,two distinctbut complimentaryempiricalprojectsare
underway(Stryker& Burke 2000). The first closely follows Strykerand focuses
on how social structureinfluences self structureand how self structureaffects
behavior.In this programof research,evidence suggests thatcommitmentto relationshipsthatshapeidentityaffects the cognitive salience of the identity,which in
turninfluencesbehavioralchoices (Stryker& Serpe 1982, Owens & Serpe 2003).
The second projectfocuses attentionon the internaldynamicsof self, concentrating on the cognitive and behavioralprocesses that work to align the meanings of
identity with self and action. Burke and colleagues have developed a cybernetic
control model that demonstratesconsiderablepower (Stets & Burke 1994, Cast
et al. 1999) and has been used to explain how and why the meaningsof personal
identitieschange (Burke& Cast 1997).
Togetherthe researchtraditionsestablishedby Strykerand Burke have had a
wide impactandhave influencedresearchon emotions (Smith-Lovin1995), social
126
CALLERO
movements(Strykeret al. 2000), groupconflict (Trew& Benson 1996), education
(Collier 2000), and altruism(Piliavin & Callero 1991).
Nonhuman Objectsas Apparatusesof Self-Construction
In a provocativereview essay, Knorr Cetina (2001) examines the sociological
implicationsof a postsocial environment,where the individualizationprocess of
modernityemptiesouttraditionalformsof socialitybutcreatesspacefor nonhuman
social resources.It is her position that "themodernuntyingof identities has been
accompaniedby an expansionof object-centeredenvironmentswhich situateand
stabilizeselves, defineindividualidentityjust as muchas communitiesandfamilies
used to do" (p. 525). Althoughthereis little empiricalresearchassociatedwith this
claim, some studieshave examinedthe mannerin which objectscome to serve as a
resourceforidentity(e.g., Sliver 1996), anda growingfieldof researchis concerned
with the impactof new communicationtechnologies on self-construction.
Cerulo (1997) argues that new communicationtechnologies have expanded
access to a wide rangeof "generalizedothers,"thus altering"thebackdropagainst
which identity is constructed"(p. 397). This is a point developed more fully by
Altheide (2000), who notes thatthe influenceof technologicalapparatusescan be
seen in the establishmentof "mediacommunities"that add a new dimension to
the physical and symbolic environmentof our everydaylives.
The evidence suggeststhatmediaapparatusesworkto assist in the construction
of a self that is less place bound and thereforeless dependenton "the definition
of the situation"(Meyrowitz1997). It also shows how new media technology can
both separatethe body from the self and hide it (in the case of the Internet)or
create a detachedviewing that highlights the body in the case of video (Waskul
2002). In both instances,we see importantimplicationsfor self-construction.For
some, this can takethe formof a "parallellife," as in the case of Internetusers who
engage in extensive, online role-playinggames (Turkle1996), where actors feel
liberatedin theiropportunityto expressdifferent"aspectsof the self." Also, in the
case of some television talk shows, participantscan producesurprisingfeelings
of empowermentand self-worth as they reveal intimate details of their lives to
millions of viewers and receive a uniqueform of notoriety(Priest 1996).
However,the use of new communicationtechnologies is far from positive for
most people. Of particularsociological interest is the mannerin which the new
technology assists in dominationand control of the self. This is the case for the
expandingtechnologies of surveillance(video, lie detectors,drug tests, etc.) that
work as mechanismsof induced self-regulation(Staples 2000). It is also evident
when mass media, especially throughcommercialadvertising,creates and commodifiesidentityimages thatconstructthe self in a mannerthatbenefitsa consumer
economy (Ewen & Ewen 1992) and serves the interestsof a decidedly conservative political agenda(Giroux 1997). Still, researchby Milkie (1999) suggests that
even thoughmedia images affect self-understandingsthroughsocial comparisons
and reflectedappraisals,some actors do find ways to resist their influence.More
researchis neededto exploreif andhow suchresistanceoccursat a collective level.
OFSELF
SOCIOLOGY
127
Whetherwe are moving towarda culturethatplaces greaterauthorityandtruth
in online relationsand onscreenimages, as suggested by Baudrillard(1983) and
otherpostmodernists,is uncertain.Nevertheless,it is clear thatunderstandingthe
role of nonhumanapparatusesin the constructionof the self is an emerging and
importanttopic of study.
Products of Self-Construction
In the fourthedition of the two-volumeHandbookof Social Psychology (Gilbert
et al. 1998) thereis, for the firsttime, a separatechapter(Baumeister1998) devoted
exclusively to the self--covering 60 pages and containing over 300 references.
Clearlythe explosion of interestin the self so evidentin the humanitiesand social
sciences is also occurringin psychology.Althoughpsychologistsaremoving away
fromanemphasison biologicallybaseddispositionstowarda moresocial model of
the individual(e.g., Walsh& Banaji 1997), they arestill muchmorelikely to focus
on individual"productsof self construction."By thisI meanthe qualitiesof the self
observedat the level of the subjectandconceptualizedas a variablein the explanation of individualbehavior.For example, Baumeister's(1998) review of the field
contains discussions of self-enhancement,self-deception, self-monitoring,selfefficacy, self-regulation, self-handicapping,self-presentation,self-guides, selfverification,self-knowledge, self-control, and self-image. As these productsof
the self-constructionprocesscome to be employedas predictorsof behavior,there
is a tendency to focus on stability,unity, and conformity and de-emphasizethe
sociological principlesof social construction.The self thatis socially constructed
may congeal arounda relativelystable set of culturalmeanings,but these meanings can never be permanentor unchanging.Similarly,the self that is socially
constructedmay appearcentered,unified,and singular,butthis symbolic structure
will be as multidimensionaland diverse as the social relationshipsthat surround
it. Finally, the self that is socially constructedis never a bounded quality of the
individualor a simpleexpressionof psychologicalcharacteristics;it is a fundamentally social phenomenon,where concepts, images, and understandingsare deeply
determinedby relationsof power.Wherethese principlesare ignoredor rejected,
the self is often conceptualizedas a vessel for storing all the particularsof the
person.
Takethe case, for example, of self-esteem. When the concept of self-esteem
enteredpopularcultureit was loosened from its sociological and scientificmoorings to become the "entrepreneurial"
object of educators,parentingexperts,pop
psychologists, managementgurus, hip televangelists, and personalpower hucksters. Hewitt's(1998) aptlytitledbook TheMythof Self-Esteemserves as a timely
sociological reminderthatproductsof self-construction,such as self-esteem,often
serve as conceptualresourcesfor an entire culture.In a mannerconsistent with
Giddens'(1991) notionof a "doublehermeneutic,"we see in self-esteema concept
thatbegins to shape the very behaviorit was designed to explain.
Recognizing self-esteem as a culturalartifactdoes not necessarily mean it is
irrelevantto sociological analysis. I agree with Hewitt that the self, defined in
128
CALLERO
terms of reflexivity (the capacity to reflect on one's actions, thoughts, and feelings), is a universalhumanexperiencethatserves as a phenomenalbase. Products
of social constructionare built on top of the psychic and corporalexperience of
reflexivity.Self-esteem is best understoodin this context as a named emotion or
mood that has been elaboratedwith diverse culturalmeanings and uses. Understandingthe historical,political,andculturaldevelopmentof the namingprocesses
is an importantsociological task, one that should extend to otherproductsof the
self.
Recent attemptsto move the study of self-esteem in a more sociological direction can be found in studies of the relationshipbetween self-esteem and identity
theory (Ervin & Stryker2001, Cast & Burke 2002), the use of cultural narratives (Statham& Rhoades 2001), and beliefs regardingsocial inequality (Hunt
2001).
CONCLUSION
[T]he postmodernists'most pessimistic view of the demise of the self has not
been born out; rather,the core self has adaptedto contemporaryconditions
and thrived.
PatriciaA. Adler and PeterAdler (1999, p. 54)
The quote from Adler & Adler is in reference to a study of transientresort
workers who live an unconventionaland fragmentedlifestyle of temporaryand
depthless relationships,yet have been able to maintaina core understandingof
theirown centeredselfhood.It could, however,serveequallywell as an assessment
of the self as a sociological concept. At a time when many poststructuraland
postmodernscholarshave declaredthe end of the self as a political,philosophical,
and scientific concept, the self continues to thrive in academiaand is especially
vibrantin sociology.
Admittingto the constructivistnatureof the self, recognizing its culturaland
historical origins, and accepting the self as a product of power relations does
not necessarily remove the self as an object and force in society. At its core the
self is defined by the reflexive process, the universalhumanexperience of selfobjectification.Yeteven at the level of self-meanings,self-image,andself-concept,
where the historical,cultural,and political particularsof identityare exposed, the
self continuesto prosperas an importantconceptualtool.
In much the same way thatthe conceptof identityhas become centralto a wide
range of substantiveconcerns (Howard2000, Cerulo 1997) so too has the self
expandedbeyond the traditionalboundariesof symbolic interactionism.Indeed,
in many ways the self has been resurrected.In its new form we find a deeper
appreciationof the historical, political, and sociological foundationof selfhood
and a more sophisticatedunderstandingof the relationshipbetween the self and
social action.
OFSELF
SOCIOLOGY
129
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Thanksto ViktorGecas andMichael Schwalbefor helpfulcommentson an earlier
draftof the manuscript.
The AnnualReviewof Sociologyis online at http://soc.annualreviews.org
CITED
LITERATURE
Adler PA, Adler P. 1999. Transienceand the
postmodernself: the geographicmobility of
resortworkers.Sociol. Q. 40:31-58
Altheide DL. 2000. Identityand the definition
of the situationin a mass-mediatedcontext.
Symb.Interact.23:1-27
Antonio RJ, KellnerD. 1994. The futureof social theory andthe limits of postmoderncritique. In Postmodernismand Social Inquiry,
eds. DR Dickens, A Fontana, pp. 127-52.
New York:GuilfordPress
Arnett JJ. 2002. The psychology of globalization. Am. Psychol. 57:774-83
BarberBR. 1996.Jihadvs. McWorld:How Globalism and Tribalism are Reshaping the
World.New York:BallantineBooks
BaudrillardJ. 1983. Simulations. New York:
Semiotext(e)
BaumeisterRF. 1998.The self. See Gilbertet al.
1998, pp. 680-740
Beck U, Beck-GernsheimE. 2002. Individualization: InstitutionalizedIndividualismand
its Social and Political Consequences.London, UK: Sage
Bellah RN, MadsenR, Sullivan WM, Swidler
A, Tipton SM. 1985. Habits of the Heart.
Berkeley,CA: Univ. Calif. Press
Best S. 1994. Foucault,postmodernism,andsocial theory.In Postmodernismand Social Inquiry, eds. DR Dickens, A Fontana,pp. 2552. New York:GuilfordPress
Bruner J. 1997. The narrativemodel of selfconstruction. In The Self Across Psychology: Self-Recognition,Self-Awareness,and
the Self Concept, eds. JG Snodgrass, RL
Thompson,pp. 145-61. New York:Ann. NY
Acad. Sci.
BrunerJ, LucarielloJ. 1989. Monologueas narrative of the world. In Narrativesfrom the
Crib, ed. K Nelson, pp. 73-97. Cambridge,
Mass: HarvardUniv. Press
BurkePJ, CastAD. 1997. Stabilityand change
in the genderidentitiesof newly marriedcouples. Soc. Psychol. Q. 60:277-90
BurkePJ, Owens TJ, Serpe R, Thoits PA, eds.
2003. Advances in IdentityTheoryand Research. New York:Kluwer-PlenumPress
Butler J. 1990. Gender Trouble: Feminism
and the Subversionof Identity. New York:
Routledge
CahillSE. 1998. Towarda sociology of the person. Sociol. Theory16:131-48
Callero PL. 1995. Role as resourcein a prison
uprising. In Advances in Group Processes,
ed. B Markovsky,K Heimer,J O'Brien, pp.
221-47. Greenwich,Conn.:JAIPress
CalleroPL. 2003. The political self: identityresources for radical democracy.In Advances
in Identity Theory and Research, ed. PJ
Burke,TJ Owens, R Serpe, PA Thoits. New
York:Kluwer-PlenumPress. In press
Cast AD, Burke PJ. 2002. A theory of selfesteem. Soc. Forces 80:1041-68
CastAD, StetsJE,BurkePJ. 1999. Does the self
conformto the views of others?Soc. Psychol.
Q. 62:68-82
CeruloKA. 1997. Identityconstruction:new issues, new directions.Annu. Rev. Sociol. 23:
385-409
Collier PJ. 2000. The effects of completing a
capstone course on studentidentity. Sociol.
Educ. 73:285-99
Collier PJ. 2001. The differentiatedmodel of
role identity acquisition.Symb.Interact.24:
217-35
CraneD. 2000. Fashionand Its Social Agenda:
Class, Gender, and Identity in Clothing.
Chicago:Univ. Chicago Press
130
CALLERO
CushmanP. 1995. Constructingthe Self, ConstructingAmerica:A CulturalHistoryofPsychotherapy.Cambridge,Mass: Perseus
Davis K. 1995. Reshaping the Female Body:
The Dilemma of Cosmetic Surgery. New
York:Routledge
Demo DH. 1992. The self-concept over time:
researchissues anddirections.Annu.Rev.Sociol. 18:303-26
Denzin NK. 1992. SymbolicInteractionismand
CulturalStudies: The Politics of Interpretation. Cambridge,Mass.: Blackwell
Deme S. 2002. Globalization and the reconstitution of local gender relationships.Men
Masc. 5:144-64
Dunn RG. 1997. Self, identity and difference:
Mead and the poststructuralists.Sociol. Q.
38:687-705
Elkins P. 1992. A New WorldOrder: Grassroots Movementsfor Global Change. London: Routledge
Elliot A. 2001. Conceptsof theSelf. Cambridge,
UK: Polity
ErvinLH, StrykerS. 2001. Theorizingthe relationshipbetween self-esteem andidentity.In
ExtendingSelf-EsteemTheoryandResearch:
Sociological andPsychologicalCurrents,ed.
TJ Owens, S Stryker,N Goodman,pp. 2955. Cambridge,UK: CambridgeUniv. Press
Ewen S, Ewen E. 1992. Channels of Desire:
Mass Images and the Shaping of American
Consciousness. Minneapolis: Univ. Minn.
Press
FoucaultM. 1979. Discipline and Punish. New
York:VintageBooks
FoucaultM. 1980. TheHistoryof Sexuality,Vol.
1,An introduction.New York:VintageBooks
Foucault M. 1988. The Care of the Self. New
York:Vintage Books
Foucault M. 1994. Two lectures. In Culture,
Power,History: A Reader in Contemporary
Social Theory,ed. NB Dirks, G Eley, SB Ortner, pp. 200-21. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
Univ. Press
FrableDES. 1997. Gender,racial, ethnic, sexual, and class identities.Annu.Rev.Psychol.
48:139-62
FrankDJ, Meyer JW. 2002. The profusion of
individualroles andidentitiesin the postwar
period.Sociol. Theory20:86-105
Gagne P, TewksburyR. 1999. Knowledge and
power, body and self: an analysis of knowledge systems andthe transgenderedself. Sociol. Q. 40:59-83
Gecas V, Burke PJ. 1995. Self and identity.
In Sociological Perspectiveson Social Psychology, ed. KS Cook, GA Fine, JS House,
pp. 41-67. NeedhamHeights, MA: Allyn &
Bacon
Gergen KJ. 1991. The SaturatedSelf: Dilemmas of Identityin ContemporaryLife. New
York:Basic Books
GergenKJ. 1999. An Invitationto Social Construction.London:Sage
GiddensA. 1991. Modernityand Self-Identity:
Self and Society in the Late Modern Age.
Stanford,CA: StanfordUniv. Press
Gilbert DT, Fiske ST, Lindzey G. 1998. The
Handbook of Social Psychology. Boston:
McGraw-Hill,4th ed.
GirouxHA. 1997. ChannelSurfing:Race Talk
and the Destruction of Today's Youth.New
York:Saint Martin'sPress
Gitlin T. 1995. The Twilight of Common
Dreams: WhyAmerica is Wrackedby Culture Wars.New York:HenryHolt
Gubrium JF, Holstein JA. 2000. The self in
a world of going concerns. Symb. Interact.
23:95-115
Guillen MF. 2001. Is globalization civilizing,
destructiveor feeble? A critiqueof five key
debatesin the social science literature.Annu.
Rev.Sociol. 27:235-60
Guy A, Banim M. 2000. Personal collections:
women's clothinguse andidentity.J. Gender
Stud.9:313-27
HabermasJ. 1983. Modernity: an unfinished
project. In The Anti-Aesthetic: Essays on
PostmodernCulture,ed. H Foster,pp. 3-15.
PortTownsend,WA:Bay Press
Hall S. 1996. Who needs 'identity'?In Questions of CulturalIdentity,ed. S Hall, P Du
Gay, pp. 1-17. London:Sage
HartD, Fegley S. 1997. Children'sself-awareness and self-understandingin culturalcontext. In The Conceptual Self in Context:
SOCIOLOGYOF SELF
Culture, Experience, Self-Understanding,
eds. U Neisser, DA Jopling, pp. 128-53.
Cambridge,UK: CambridgeUniv. Press
Held D, McGrewA. 2000. The greatglobalization debate: an introduction.In The Global
TransformationsReader:An Introductionto
the Globalization Debate, ed. D Held, A
McGrew, pp. 1-45. Maiden, Mass.: Polity
Press
HermansHJ, KempenHJG. 1998. Moving cultures: the perilous problems of culturaldichotomies in a globalizing society.Am. Psychol. 53:1111-20
Hewitt JP. 1998. The Myth of Self-Esteem:
Finding Happinessand Solving Problemsin
America. New York:St. Martin'sPress
Holstein JA, GubriumJF. 2000. The Self We
Live By: NarrativeIdentityin a Postmodern
World.New York:OxfordUniv. Press
Hochschild AR. 1983. The Managed Heart:
Commercializationof Human Feeling. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
HochschildAR. 1989. TheSecond Shift:Working ParentsandtheRevolutionat Home.New
York:Viking
Hochschild AR. 1997. The Time Bind: When
WorkBecomes Home and Home Becomes
Work.New York:MetropolitanBooks
HowardJA. 2000. Social psychology of identities. Annu.Rev.Sociol. 26:367-93
Hunt MO. 2001. Self-evaluationand stratification beliefs. In ExtendingSelf-Esteem Theory and Research:Sociological and Psychological Currents,eds. TJ Owens, S Stryker,
N Goodman, pp. 330-50. Cambridge,UK:
CambridgeUniv. Press
Joas H. 1983. The intersubjectiveconstitution
of the body-image.Hum. Stud.6:197-204
JoasH. 1996. TheCreativityofAction.Chicago:
Univ. Chicago Press
KnorrCetinaK. 2001. Postsocialrelations:theorizing socialityin a postsocial environment.
In Handbookof Social Theory,ed. G Ritzer,
B Smart,pp. 520-37. London:Sage
LaschC. 1979. TheCultureof Narcissism.New
York:Norton
Lemert C. 1992. Series Editor's Preface. In
Symbolic Interactionand CulturalStudies:
131
ThePolitics of Interpretation,pp. vii-xi. Oxford:Blackwell
Levine G. 1992. Introduction:constructivism
and the reemergent self. In Constructions
of the Self, ed. G Levine, pp. 1-13. New
Brunswick,NJ: RutgersUniv. Press
Loseke DR, Cavendish JC. 2001. Producing
institutional selves: rhetorically constructing the dignity of sexually marginalized
Catholics.Soc. Psychol. Q. 64:347-62
Maines DR. 1996. On postmodernism,pragmatism, and plasterers:some interactionist
thoughts and queries. Symb. Interact. 19:
323-40
Maines DR. 2001. TheFaultlineof Consciousness: A Viewof Interactionismin Sociology.
New York:Aldine De Gruyter
Marcuse H. 1964. One-Dimensional Man.
Boston: Beacon Press
Marty ME, Appleby RS. 1993. Fundamentalismsand Society. Chicago:Univ. Chicago
Press
Mason-Schrock D. 1996. Transsexuals' narrariveconstructionof the 'trueself. Soc. Psychol. Q. 59:176-92
McClay WM. 1994. The Masterless: Self and
Society in Modern America. Chapel Hill:
Univ. NorthCarolinaPress
Mead GH. 1934. Mind Self and Society.
Chicago:Univ. Chicago Press
Meyrowitz J. 1997. Shifting worlds of strangers: medium theory and changes in 'them'
versus 'us'. Soc. Inq. 67:59-71
Milkie MA. 1999. Social comparisons, reflected appraisals,and mass media: the impact of pervasivebeautyimages on black and
white girls' self-concepts. Soc. Psychol. Q.
62:180-210
Mouffe C. 1995. Feminism, citizenship, and
radical democraticpolitics. In Social Postmodernism:Beyond IdentityPolitics, eds. L
Nicholson, S Seidman, pp. 315-31. Cambridge,UK: CambridgeUniv. Press
Nelson K. 1997. Finding one's self in
time. In The Self Across Psychology: SelfRecognition, Self-Awareness,and the Self
Concept,eds. JG Snodgrass,RL Thompson,
pp. 103-16. New York:Ann. NY Acad. Sci.
132
CALLERO
Nicholson L, SeidmanS. 1995. Introduction.In
Social Postmodernism:BeyondIdentityPolitics, eds. L Nicholson, S Seidman,pp. 1-35.
Cambridge,UK: CambridgeUniv. Press
Owens TJ, ed. 2000. Self and IdentityThrough
the Life Course in Cross-CulturalPerspective. Stamford,CT:JAIPress
Owens TJ, Serpe R. 2003. The role of selfevaluationin identity salience and commitment.InAdvancesin IdentityTheoryandResearch,eds. PJBurke,TJOwens,R Serpe,PA
Thoits. New York:Kluwer-PlenumPress. In
press
Piliavin JA, Callero PL. 1991. Giving Blood:
The Development of an Altruistic Identity.
Baltimore,MD: JohnsHopkinsUniv. Press
PerinbanayagamRS. 1991. Discursive Acts.
New York:Aldine de Gruyter
PhelanMP, Hunt SA. 1998. Prison gang members' tattoosas identitywork:the visual communicationof moralcareers.Symb.Interact.
21:277-98
PrevesSE. 2001. Sexing the intersexed:ananalysis of socioculturalresponses to intersexuality. Signs 27:523-56
PriestPJ. 1996. 'Giltby association':talk show
participants'televisuallyenhancedstatusand
self-esteem. In Constructingthe Self in a Mediated World,ed. D Grodin,TR Lindlof, pp.
68-83. ThousandOaks, CA: Sage
Riesman D. 1950. The Lonely Crowd. New
Haven, CT:YaleUniv. Press
Rose N. 1996. Identity,genealogy, history. In
Questions of CulturalIdentity,ed. S Hall, P
Du Gay, pp. 128-50. London:Sage
Rosenberg M. 1981. The self-concept: social
productand social force. In Social Psychology: Sociological Perspectives,ed. M Rosenberg, R Turner,pp. 593-624. New York:Basic Books
Russell JW.2003. Landandidentityin Mexico:
peasants stop an airport.Mon. Rev. 54:1425
Schwalbe ML. 1993. Goffinan against postmodernism:emotion and the reality of the
self. Symb.Interact. 16:333-50
Sennet R. 1977. The Fall of Public Man. New
York:Knopf
Sennet R. 1998. The Corrosion of Character
New York:Norton
Shalin D. 1988. George HerbertMead, socialism, and the progressiveagenda.Am. J. Sociol. 93:913-51
Silver I. 1996. Role transitions, objects, and
identity.Symb.Interact. 19:1-20
Slater PE. 1970 The Pursuit of Loneliness:
American Culture at the Breaking Point.
Boston: Beacon Press
Smith-LovinL. 1995. The sociology of affect
andemotion.In Sociological Perspectiveson
Social Psychology,ed. KS Cook, GA Fine,JS
House, pp. 118-48. NeedhamHeights, MA:
Allyn & Bacon
Snow D, Anderson L. 1993. Down on Their
Luck.Berkeley:Univ. Calif. Press
StaplesWG. 2000. EverydaySurveillance:Vigilance and Visibilityin PostmodernLife. Lanham, MD: Rowan & Littlefield
StathamA, RhoadesK. 2001. Genderand selfesteem: narrativeand efficacy in the negotiation of structuralfactors.In ExtendingSelfEsteem Theoryand Research: Sociological
and Psychological Currents,eds. TJ Owens,
S Stryker,N Goodman, pp. 255-84. Cambridge,UK: CambridgeUniv. Press
StetsJE,BurkePJ. 1994.Inconsistentself views
in the control identity model. Soc. Sci. Res.
23:236-62
Stets JE, Burke PJ. 2003. A sociological
approach to self and identity. In Handbook of Self and Identity, eds. M Leary, J
Tangney,pp. 128-52. New York: Guilford
Press
Stevenson HW, Zusho A. 2002. Adolescence
in China and Japan:adaptingto a changing
environment.In The World'sYouth:Adolescence in EightRegionsof the Globe, eds. BB
Brown, R Larson,TS Saraswathi,pp. 14170. New York:CambridgeUniv. Press
Stryker S. 1980. Symbolic Interactionism:A
Social StructuralVersion.Menlo Park,CA:
Benjamin/Cumings
StrykerS, BurkePJ.2000. The past,presentand
futureof an identitytheory.Soc. Psychol. Q.
63:284-97
StrykerS, OwensTJ,WhiteRW,eds. 2000. Self,
SOCIOLOGYOF SELF
IdentityandSocialMovements.Minneapolis,
MN: Univ. Minn.Press
StrykerS, SerpeRT. 1982. Commitment,identity salience, and role behavior: a theory and research example. In Personality,
Roles and Social Behavior, ed. W Ickes, ES
Knowles, pp. 199-218. New York:Springer
Verlag
Swatos WH. 2001 Globalizationand religious
fundamentalism.In IlluminatingSocial Life:
Classical and ContemporaryTheoryRevisited, ed. P Kivisto, pp. 361-84. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Pine Forge
SwidlerA. 1986. Culturein action:symbolsand
strategies.Am. Sociol. Rev. 51:273-86
TavisThomsonI. 2000. In ConflictNo Longer:
Self and Society in ContemporaryAmerica.
Lanham,MD: Rowen & Littlefield
Taylor CT. 1989. Sources of the Self: The
Making of the Modem Identity.Cambridge,
Mass.: HarvardUniv. Press
TomlinsonJ. 1999. Globalizationand Culture.
Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
133
Trew K, Benson DE. 1996. Dimensions of social identity in NorthernIreland.In Changing EuropeanIdentities: Social Psychological Analyses of Social Change, ed. GM
Breakwell, E Lyons, pp. 123-43. Oxford,
UK: Butterworth-Heinemann
TurkleS. 1996. Parallellives: workingon identity in virtualspace. In Constructingthe Self
in a Mediated World, ed. D Grodin, TR
Lindlof, pp. 156-75. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage
Walsh WA, Banaji MR. 1997. The collective
self. In The Self Across Psychology: SelfRecognition, Self-Awareness,and the Self
Concept, ed. JG Snodgrass,RL Thompson,
pp. 193-214. New York:Ann. NY Acad. Sci.
Waskul DD. 2002. The naked self: being a
body in televideo cybersex. Symb.Interact.
25:199-227
WhyteWH. 1956. TheOrganizationMan. Garden City, New York:Doubleday
Wiley N. 1994. The Semiotic Self. Chicago:
Univ. Chicago Press